[JD6]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

In which case why did we waste the money in the first place?

If businesses aren’t stable after the virus is being better controlled, then fine, we may have to look differently.

But if businesses that were profitable before this cease to exist where do people go after.

And yes, benefits probably cost less than a furlough scheme week to week. But if the businesses go, people might be on benefits for years, not furlough for months.

It was absolutely right to create a broad brush protective scheme in March as the uncertainty was huge. We simply had very little idea how the virus would impact the economy and for how long.

We still don't have all of the answers, but we know a great deal more than we did in March. We can see that our best guess currently is that a full recovery in hospitality may well be a couple of years away. If that is the current assumption, should we really be propping up those jobs for 2 more years? I would suggest not.

It will increase the numbers on benefits, as you say, but I would rather funds be spent on getting people into new jobs which are viable sooner, than basing our assumptions on recreating our economy exactly as it was in 2019.

[mikeoz]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

40% of our business broadly is international travellers.
40% is corporate - people coming to London on company business for exhibitions, events, meetings, Head Office, whatever....
Some may be in both groups - a PwC partner from US coming to a UK exhibition is both.

But both are going to be slow to recover. Whatever support the govt gave was going to be years not months (for part of the workforce at least) so we couldnt risk that and took difficult decisions to get the workforce right for now and we will re-recruit as we need people, suspect there will be a surplus for a while....

Interestingly I have just got back from Germany and if you are from the US or other High risk areas you have to provide a C19 Neg test to be able to check in...No clear test you can't stay...When I checked in they ran through a list of high infection rate areas in UK to see if my address was incl...

It's effectively a travel ban in reality or at least a big deterrent something we have never done.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JD6

It was absolutely right to create a broad brush protective scheme in March as the uncertainty was huge. We simply had very little idea how the virus would impact the economy and for how long.

We still don't have all of the answers, but we know a great deal more than we did in March. We can see that our best guess currently is that a full recovery in hospitality may well be a couple of years away. If that is the current assumption, should we really be propping up those jobs for 2 more years? I would suggest not.

It will increase the numbers on benefits, as you say, but I would rather funds be spent on getting people into new jobs which are viable sooner, than basing our assumptions on recreating our economy exactly as it was in 2019.

That’s fine, and we’re ok to differ on opinions.

I think jobs should be protected until we’re out of the eye of the storm. Other industries bounced back quicker than expected, hospitality may do better than we think.

And undoubtedly it will be better than now, but not as well as before. Where we are isn’t much different to March in my mind. In the eye of the storm, with just much idea as to what next year brings.

If furlough until Spring keeps some businesses open, and keeps maybe half of the jobs about to go viable I think that’s a good option.

It’s easy to sit here and try and look at cash only, but very few on here seem to be directly impacted. Even Ian in the middle of it isn’t about to lose his house and ability to feed his family whatever happens.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

That’s fine, and we’re ok to differ on opinions.

Is everything OK? Do we need to send help?

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

It’s easy to sit here and try and look at cash only, but very few on here seem to be directly impacted. Even Ian in the middle of it isn’t about to lose his house and ability to feed his family whatever happens.

I’m not really looking at this solely from a cost perspective, although that is significant. I’m also concerned that paying people to sit out of the jobs market in anticipation of a job that may no longer exist, might not even be in their own best interest.

I don’t think we’re going back to the 2019 situation when this is all over. I think that there will have been fundamental and lasting change to the economy with city centres in decline due to working from home, a growth in online business and further decline of the high street.

I accept though, as you implied, that it’s easy for me and most others here to embrace this change if we’re not affected in a major way. I’m not going to lose my home or way of life whatever happens. I do want to ensure though that government spending achieves more than kicking the can down the road, and long-term furlough feels like that to me.

[Lincoln61]

I sympathize with the principle of getting the best deal for anyone being out of work. But long term 2/3 is better than dead staff or dead customers......no customers pay 0% of anyone's wages.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Lincoln61

I sympathize with the principle of getting the best deal for anyone being out of work. But long term 2/3 is better than dead staff or dead customers......no customers pay 0% of anyone's wages.

It is, but it is limited to very high areas only and where businesses have been asked to close.

Not going to protect many.

High areas with decimated trade aren’t protected by this scheme at all, so like Ian’s employees they get made redundant because there is no other option open.

[DougMcL]

Back in the Nightingale ICU here. Looks like it may be worse this time. Anecdotal of course. Same patient demographic. Maybe more females. Late fifties. Hypertension, DM and obesity.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by DougMcL

Back in the Nightingale ICU here. Looks like it may be worse this time. Anecdotal of course. Same patient demographic. Maybe more females. Late fifties. Hypertension, DM and obesity.

That's worrying.

DM?

[Sennen]

Originally Posted by JD6

That's worrying.

DM?

I assume Diabetes

[DougMcL]

yup type 2 diabetes mellitus. Linked to obesity. Worrying how many overweight men in their late fifties end up ventilated.

[thescouselander]

It's already a bloodbath round here. Businesses collapsing all around including my son's after school club and his swimming school not too far behind. There's also several pubs and restaurants going down the pan almost daily it seems.

I was interviewing for some new staff last week. We don't normally have too many applicants because we don't pay the best but this time we had hundreds of actually pretty decent CVs. Some of the people I interviewed sounded pretty desperate to be honest.

Nobody's going to be insulated from this society seems to be unravelling.

[ArthurKing]

Wife’s Nan has been in hospital for about 6 weeks due to unrelated issues but there has been a Covid ‘outbreak’ on her ward with several patients testing positive.

You would expect the hospital to have called the relatives of the patients to explain the situation and any that have visited recently to isolate?

Nope, we found out from the an article in the local paper.

Her Dad visited three days before the outbreak and was with her for over an hour, he is vulnerable and was shielding back during lockdown yet nobody called him. When he called up and asked if he needed to isolate....they don’t know was the answer, I kid you not.

Fast forward a few days, we find out Last might her Nan has tested positive and she’s been having symptoms for a few days.

[bytejunkie]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

And talking of evidence, where’s your proof that they were all going to die anyway?
I’m sure the 620 NHS staff and care workers that died weren’t all expecting to drop dead anytime soon.

I know this is 3 pages old, but i want to clear this up :
I didnt say it, i thought it was one of the nasty things that boris/govt shill trotted out around the time it peaked. i definitely classed it as a horribly incompassionate statement.

[ZedsRedBaby]

The all-cause death figures for week 41 (9 October) are out today. The rises in infections and hospital admissions are still not translating into an increase in overall deaths, so a bit of good news among the doom and gloom.

[shoestring]

Now on day5 following positive test for Covid-19. Rather poorly but still at home.

Sod the economy! Saving and protecting lives must come before anything!
The economy can be rebuilt at a later stage.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by shoestring

Now on day5 following positive test for Covid-19. Rather poorly but still at home.

Sod the economy! Saving and protecting lives must come before anything!
The economy can be rebuilt at a later stage.

Hope that you feel better soon and make a full recovery.

[ArthurKing]

Originally Posted by shoestring

Now on day5 following positive test for Covid-19. Rather poorly but still at home.

Sod the economy! Saving and protecting lives must come before anything!
The economy can be rebuilt at a later stage.

The problem with this approach is that although a lockdown will bring the infection rate down to a low level, it won't stop it entirely as you have umpteen people who need to move around including emergency workers, delivery drivers, NHS staff etc. Its still going to spread, albeit at a far slower rate.

You could argue this is fine, far lower is better than far higher and I agree but we can't stay in lockdown as an entire Country indefinitely.

There has to be a balance whereby people can go about there lives in a far more limited way than normal but keeping distance from others and practicing good hygiene. The problem with this approach is that is what we had in July when they started lifting restrictions and three months on and we are heading backwards again.

Restricting household mixing to a specific number is a waste of time, its simply not enforceable and I can assure you, enough people will ignore it after a few months that it will become non existent anyway.

Is it fair to lock down areas which have a low rate of infection still compared to those in the North? Will it achieve anything as their infection rate is still low so it suggests those residents are complying with the rules.

So we impose a blanket lockdown tomorrow. Infections will fall, no question about it. I would suggest we are looking at 4-6 weeks to see any meaningful drop in terms of infections/hospitalisations etc.

Then what? We relax restrictions but which ones?
Schools? I can't believe for a second that kids are not spreading it round, every parent will tell you they are ill far more since having kids.
Hospitality? Its virtually dead anyway
Workplaces like offices? Perhaps but if they are all Covid secure and its still spreading, where do we go from there?
Household mixing? As above, its hardly enforceable and the longer that restriction continues, the less people will listen.

There is no easy solution here and if you look at virtually every other EU Country, its quite clear that preventing infection rise AND functioning as an economy is far more challenging than people think.

Hopefully you get better soon, the vast majority do but having known people who have had it also, I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

[Sennen]

Originally Posted by shoestring

Now on day5 following positive test for Covid-19. Rather poorly but still at home.

Sod the economy! Saving and protecting lives must come before anything!
The economy can be rebuilt at a later stage.

Yes all the best for a full recovery, means more than money

[dazzapb]

Burnham is derek Hatton in disguise he's come out of this badly I think

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by dazzapb

Burnham is derek Hatton in disguise he's come out of this badly I think

Not sure as trying not to watch it, its embarassing.... however, my Mum (still up north and probably a traditionalist red) was saying that it was good that he was trying to stand up for all those jobs and businesses and get them more money... so maybe your view on his efforts depends on the lens you are looking through?

Boris is not coming out of it very well which is the main thing Burnham wanted.....

Rumours of a mass demonstration and troops on the streets on Manchester before the week is out....

[dazzapb]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Not sure as trying not to watch it, its embarassing.... however, my Mum (still up north and probably a traditionalist red) was saying that it was good that he was trying to stand up for all those jobs and businesses and get them more money... so maybe your view on his efforts depends on the lens you are looking through?

Boris is not coming out of it very well which is the main thing Burnham wanted.....

Rumours of a mass demonstration and troops on the streets on Manchester before the week is out....

Fair point I think as the virus is rampant they are all playing politics - what a time to do that.
The Govt say they have the same ratio of payments - matching Lancashire and Merseyside. Who knows if that's true but 10 days of delays over 5 million is Madness.
Defo grandstanding on both sides.